On Sunday 31 March 2002 08:22, you wrote: > Dan M. wrote > << I suppose you could construct a theoretical case where terrorism could > be justified. It certainly isn't here. Considering that the Palestinians > are part of the agrees party, that has overtly tried to destroy Israel no > less than 4 times, and still having the goal of destroying Israel (and > likely killing all the Jews in Israel), its hard to find their behavior > ethical. Is there something special about Israel that makes it's > destruction ethical?>> > > Trent Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <<I disagree. It is unclear to me that Palestinians or Arabs are the > agressor party. >> > > Ilana > 5 wars started by Arab countries. And it is not clear enough yet?
I think it takes either a very pro-Israeli or very literal interpretation of "to start a war" to attribute *ALL* the Arab-Israeli wars to the Arabs. In particular the wars in the 1950s between Arabs and Israel are generally blammed on Israel. > Trent > <<Zionism is not racism _per se_. However, it is an *inherently* colonial > project. Israel was paid for by expropriating Arab land. >> > > Ilana > Israel bought most of it's lands! And Arabs sold it. Some of the land were > sold several times. Now that I'd *really* have to see documentation for. I know that prior to 1948 Zionists had to buy land, and even today Jews continue to be net purchasers of land from Arabs. However, *most* land in Israel and the occupied territories is and was state land, basically held in common. When Israel inhereted rights of state sovereignty from the British Mandate and later from Egypt (Gaza), Syria (Golan Hights) and Jordan (West Bank), they assumed control as property of all state land. My understanding is that it is Israeli policy to *not* compensate Arabs for loss of usefruct when they convert public land to other uses. Second, I would need to see documentation that the landowners and stakeholders in the many villages that were abandoned in the wake of 1948 were fully and fairly compensated. Third, none of this addresses the issue of how many Arabs willingly alienated real property or usefruct rights. In short, Israel looks like a colonial project to me. How could it be otherwise. In 1900 Jews were a minority with no state in Palestine. In 1950 Jews were a majority in enough of Palestine to include more than half the country in the state of Israel. If done by means other than an intentional colonial project either my debating partner is: 1) Deploying special pleading for the Zionist-Israel case. 2) Using a sanitized definition of "colonial project" that amounts to special pleading for Israel. or 3) Is about to argue that Arabs living in Palestine thought that the idea of a Zionist state in Palestine was just a nifty idea and were thus enthusiastic partners in the colonial project. Thus, normal moral assessments of colonialism do not apply. > Trent > <<Oh well, that's politics. I'm American. My homeland was paid for by > Indians. >> > > Ilana > Who gave land for peace. Just like you think of Israel is moral to do. I have no recollection of saying American Indians did anything immoral in trading land for survival. At least Israeli's get a choice. Furthemore, we can debate whether the occupied territories are land that needs to be *given up*. The USA gave up claims to large parts of what was then British Canada (admittedly to prosecute a war of conquest against Mexico). It also gave independence to colonies in the Philipines and Cuba. > Tent > <<Too bad the early Zionist pioneers either couldn't or didn't exterminate > or neutralize the "aboriginal" Palestinian population. (They had much > better luck with Bedoin.)>> > > Ilana > Huh? Early Zionist pioneers had good relationships with they Arab > Neighbours as long as they permitted them to do guarding duty and to steal > them blind. The day Jewish guarding organization Hashomer was found was the > start of open fights. Yes... The straighforward sociological analysis would classify the Arab behavior as resistance and hardly helps your case. > Some of Bedoin are Israeli citizens and even serve in > Army. Do you remember when four Israeli soldiers were killed in Gaza? > Probably not. Do you remember when Israel, retaliating, destroyed 52 empty > hoses and how quickly there were suddenly "refugees" who claimed been > thrown our of houses in the middle of the night? You, probably, do. Those > four soldiers were from Bedoin unit. Not retaliating would have brought > accusation of discrimination and/or independent reaction by the friends of > the killed. As things stood they were mad, that they got "only to destroy > empty houses" they believed that their friends' blood cost more. And so your point is, what. There are American Indians and Blacks serving with pride and distinction in the American Army. That has no bearing on how exploitation of Indians and Blacks helped make America rich and racist. > I agree. > Israel made mistake with bedoim - they tried to settle them. Most of the > cities stand deserted. It *is* hard to deal with nomad society and meet > it's needs. This is implicitly condescending, and is a clasic trace of a colonial (not to mention racist) mentality. It is also beside the point. > Trent wrote > <<There are a lot of Palestinians left. They are going to try to reconquer > their land.>> > > Ilana > But not from Jordan. Although most of Jordan population are Palestinians. > They remember black October too well. They also remember who was fool > enough to give them shelter when Jordan king butchered them. In case you > don't know - it was Israel. Very true, although I can't vouch for what proportion of the Feyyedin returned to Gaza and the West Bank. > Trent > <<The Spanish did it. > The Portuguese did it. > The Dutch did it. > The Irish did it. > The Algerians did it. > The East Timorese did it.>> > > Ilana > And Israel would do it. Bemehera, beyameinu, Amen. > > Ilana from Israel The Spanish and Portuguese reconcquered their homeland from the Moors. The Dutch liberated their homeland from the Spanish. The Irish liberated their homeland from the British (mostly). The Algerians reconquered their homeland from the French. The East Timorese liberated their homeland from the Javanese. In each case a disadvantaged party defeated a stronger party in a war of national liberation. Do I understand you to say that Israel intends to reconquer the rest of Palestine from the more powerfull Palestinian occupiers.
